Police Tazer, Pepperspray, and Beat Mentally Challenged Teen

[zoobyshoe]

Autistic kids likes rules and procedures that they are familiar with. You can't force rules on such a person

Exactly why you shouldn't taser, pepper-spray, and beat them into learning to respect the cops: it won't work. A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might stand a chance.

 

[micromass]

Exactly why you shouldn't taser, pepper-spray, and beat them into learning to respect the cops: it won't work. A calm, slow, friendly, instructional conversation might stand a chance.

If the boy needed to be subdued, then this was the only way. Maybe the cops thought that he was a danger to himself or others. You need to know the POV of the cops before making any statements on the matter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If the boy needed to be subdued, then this was the only way. Maybe the cops thought that he was a danger to himself or others. You need to know the POV of the cops before making any statements on the matter.

I said that:

Stipulating all the facts are correct and complete, I don't see how anyone could support the cops here. But, we'd want to hear the whole thing from the cops side, as well.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(To add to the below scenario, imagine the kid making a violent motion with his head every time he forces his way past the speech impediment)

Cop: Sir, stop the bike.

Kid: Wh, wh... WHAT DO you want?

Cop: I'm going to have to give you a ticket

Kid: I did... did... DIDN'T DO anything.

Cop: *explains violation*

Kid: I'm g.. g... GOING HOME.

*kid gets on bike*

Cop: SIR! DON'T LEAVE THE SCENE!

Kid: T.. t.. TALK TO MY MOM.

*kid bikes off*

*cop chases kid, shouting at him to stop*

*neighbor sees chase, and rushes out of house to intercepts officer*

Neighbor: Stop picking on that kid! He's mentally handicapped.

*neighbor attempts intimidating stare*

Cop: Sir, go back to your home or you will be arrested for interfering.

*Cop goes past neighbor and continues pursuit. Calls for backup. Continues shouting after the kid to stop his flight*

*Kid arrives at home yard*

Cop: Do not enter that house. Stay outside.

*kid starts towards house*

Cop: Stop or I will be forced to restrain you.

*kid nears door*

*Cop fires the taser to stop the kid, then approaches to subdue*

*kid violently resists*

et cetera.


This scenario I lay out above seems fairly consistent with the facts laid out in the article of the opening post. And the cop in my scenario seems to be behaving quite reasonably.

But, you state that you don't care about any of the facts of the scenario other than those outlined in the article of the opening post. You would condemn my scenario's cop without even listening to the whole story?

whether or not the officer was "disrespected" only goes to the state of mind of the officer. There is no legal or procedural prescription for treating someone differently simply because they have "disrespected" you. It does not make the person more in need of chasing, it does not make the person more in need of being caught, except perhaps in the mind of the officer who is angry about it. So no I don't care. It should not have had any significant effect on the performance of the officer.

And your scenario is not reasonable. The child did not need to be chased down. I'm not saying that it was wrong of the officers to do so but it was not strictly necessary. You seem to build your scenario on the idea that each further step was necessarily the next based on the last and that is not appropriate. What is necessary should be determined by the base issue at hand or a direct and immediate threat to the officers safety. So you are saying it was necessary for the officer to catch his perp before he entered the house and that this necessity was most easily accomplished by using a tazer (in your scenario). The question then is: Why is it so necessary to stop a teen who made a traffic violation that you would use a tazer? Would you follow the whole chain of next steps to the point that the officer shoots the kid and kills him? over a traffic violation? Officers should never allow a situation to be escalated to such a disproportionate level beyond the initial circumstances by their own actions.

 

[Hurkyl]

Officers should never allow a situation to be escalated to such a disproportionate level beyond the initial circumstances by their own actions.

You might be interested in knowing there's an easy way to avoid speeding tickets on the highways in my area. If a cop starts to pull you over, simply ignore him -- maybe speed up a bit. The cop might not even try to pull you over if you're already going fast enough, or at least are going faster than everyone else on the road.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You might be interested in knowing there's an easy way to avoid speeding tickets on the highways in my area. If a cop starts to pull you over, simply ignore him -- maybe speed up a bit. The cop might not even try to pull you over if you're already going fast enough, or at least are going faster than everyone else on the road.

Right, because speeding in an automobile is equivalent to a traffic violation on a bicycle. And either way I really do hope that officers in your neighbourhood don't feel the need to taze people because they really need to get arrests for traffic violations.

 

[Hurkyl]

Right, because speeding in an automobile is equivalent to a traffic violation on a bicycle.

I can't fathom the point of this comment.

And either way I really do hope that officers in your neighbourhood don't feel the need to taze people because they really need to get arrests for traffic violations.

Are you still harping on that? Tasing first was just a mistake on my part regarding rules of engagement. It's a hypothetical scenario, modify it -- put in some struggling before the taser was used, or even ignore the struggle all together. Your comments have made it sound like you would even condemn the cop simply for running down the kid. (unless I'm mixing you up with someone else)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Jesse and his mom seek damages from the city and the two lead officers, for false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, excessive use of force, infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy.

Given the seriousness of these charges, I expect we will be hearing the officers' side presently. As for Tourettes, wiki says that it causes physical and vocal tics but does not adversely affect intelligence. I doubt that Tourettes alone would cause the judge to dismiss the charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome"

As for fear that the child might become aggressive or violent, I don't know the law. Yet I doubt it is legal for a police officer to use violent force against a nonviolent citizen because of the category the citizen belongs to. It may not be relevant. The child was charged with assault on a peace officer. Please don't misinterpret the following, the charges against the boy have been dropped. If the boy were to be tried, and the officers claimed that the boy struck them, the burdon of proof would be on the officers. In the case of the lawsuit, if one of the officers claims that the boy struck him before running home, it may be difficult to disprove regardless of whether it is true. Since the mother is suing, the burdon of proof would be on her side. The officer has a great deal of incentive to say that it happened. If jury believes that the boy struck the officer first, then most of the charges in the lawsuit will fail. I am looking forward to hearing the officers' side of the story, though I can guess at some of what will be in there.

I am confused about the 20 officers that showed up. Is there a central dispatcher that controls this? What did the officers tell the dispatcher that caused a depletion of police officers in neighboring jurisdictions? That there was a riot? When was the last time that 20 officers were dispatched to any situation and what were the circumstances?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I am confused about the 20 officers that showed up. Is there a central dispatcher that controls this? What did the officers tell the dispatcher that caused a depletion of police officers in neighboring jurisdictions? That there was a riot? When was the last time that 20 officers were dispatched to any situation and what were the circumstances?

At the 24 hour cafe where I hang out they call the cops now and then because a belligerent customer won't leave. (Usually these belligerent people are drunk and came to the cafe after the bars closed.) Anyway, the cops seem to think 4 cruisers need to respond to a call like this, meaning 8 cops, just to tell a drunk to move along home. I don't know why.

 

[B. Elliott]

At the 24 hour cafe where I hang out they call the cops now and then because a belligerent customer won't leave. (Usually these belligerent people are drunk and came to the cafe after the bars closed.) Anyway, the cops seem to think 4 cruisers need to respond to a call like this, meaning 8 cops, just to tell a drunk to move along home. I don't know why.

In the military we call it intimidation by display of excessive force. The more people you have, the safer you are and the likelyhood of the potential agressor attacking also goes down. It can definitely be seen as being excessive because, it is. Purposefully.

 

[zoobyshoe]

In the military we call it intimidation by display of excessive force. The more people you have, the safer you are and the likelyhood of the potential agressor attacking also goes down. It can definitely be seen as being excessive because, it is. Purposefully.

This would explain it, then.

It actually creates the impression, though, a lot of cops have nothing better to do and are responding to the call out of curiosity.

 

[Jack21222]

The boy ran away, so the police officer had to chase him and catch him. However, an autistic kid can be very violent, therefore the officer could be at risk. It is very, very unsafe to deal with an aggressive autistic person. And autistic persons can become aggressive very suddenly.

If I were the officer, I would have called for back-up too. And perhaps I would have considered using tasers.

The thing is, we know nothing of the POV of the cops, so we can't judge whether they did a good job or used excessive force.

So you think it's okay to assault somebody because they *might* get violent? Guess what? If you assault them, they WILL get violent.

If a cop started attacking me, I'd get violent, and I'm not autistic.

There is no scenario in which a kid running into his house justifies a tasering. Every fantasy scenario posted in this thread so far in an attempt to explain the actions of the police falls short of actually justifying the situation.

 

[Hurkyl]

There is no scenario in which a kid running into his house justifies a tasering.

Sigh, kids these days and their lack of imagination. Just off the top of my head I can come up with

• The kid managed to escape from a violent struggle, and is making a break to the house to obtain a weapon
• The kid is trying to commit a violent crime inside

 

[xxChrisxx]

He could have also been dashing into the house to activate his ninja kung fu fighting robot.

 

[B. Elliott]

This would explain it, then.

It actually creates the impression, though, a lot of cops have nothing better to do and are responding to the call out of curiosity.

I'd bet more often than not that is the case. Officers within a given area tend to know each other pretty well. Close friends. If one officer gets a call about having to go handle a drunk causing a scene, his friends will definitely show up if they're closeby and not actively doing anything. Just in case.

The police deal with the more unruly and violent people in socety on a daily basis, so they handle nearly every situation as though it can make a turn for the worst. At any moment. The bad part is that situations such as the one concerning the OP are bound to happen. Policemen and women are still only human and are bound to make mistakes. That and the fact that some people who shouldn't become cops, get to become one.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Policemen and women are still only human and are bound to make mistakes. That and the fact that some people who shouldn't become cops, get to become one.

Police misconduct in San Diego became a big public issue around the beginning of June:

At least nine officers have been investigated since February on allegations ranging from rape under the color of authority to drunken driving to domestic violence.

Lansdowne said the alleged misdeeds have “tarnished the badge” and have taken a toll on the vast majority of officers who do their jobs well.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/jun/27/police-chief-working-curb-officer-misconduct/

The link contains a list of all 9 cases.

Notice in particular #9, which has a certain similarity to the incident in the OP:

May 20: Michael Edwards, who has a previous DUI conviction, was contacted on suspicion of drunken driving while off duty and allegedly walked into his Chula Vista home, refusing to cooperate. He is on unpaid leave, and Chula Vista police are investigating the case.

No mention of his having been tasered, etc when he refused to talk to the investigating officer.

 

[Jack21222]

Sigh, kids these days and their lack of imagination. Just off the top of my head I can come up with

• The kid managed to escape from a violent struggle, and is making a break to the house to obtain a weapon
• The kid is trying to commit a violent crime inside

Even then, he's not being tasered for running into his house, he's being tasered for the violent struggle or the violent crime. I stand by my statement.

 

[Hurkyl]

Even then, he's not being tasered for running into his house, he's being tasered for the violent struggle or the violent crime. I stand by my statement.

Fair enough. But I must say it's in rather poor taste to invoke that technicality, particularly given the content of the thread.

 

[Jack21222]

Fair enough. But I must say it's in rather poor taste to invoke that technicality, particularly given the content of the thread.

I have absolutely no clue what you mean by "the content of the thread." Are you suggesting that:

a) the kid WAS being violent (prior to being attacked)?
b) the kid was tasered not for running into the house, but for the traffic stop?

or was it something else you're trying to say?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Did this incident actually take place? I can't find any news story about it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Did this incident actually take place? I can't find any news story about it.

See post #1 and post #5.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I can't fathom the point of this comment.

As I noted in a previous post the primary purpose of laws regulating the operation of a bicycle on the streets is for the safety of the cyclist. The primary purpose for speeding laws is the safety of everyone involved.

Can I imagine a scenario where a bicyclist not following traffic laws could cause major harm to others? Sure. I can also look up cycling accident statistics.
On a side note apparently in 2009 Ohio was in the top ten for highest cyclist fatalities.
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2011/2/14/4749974.html

Are you still harping on that? Tasing first was just a mistake on my part regarding rules of engagement. It's a hypothetical scenario, modify it -- put in some struggling before the taser was used, or even ignore the struggle all together. Your comments have made it sound like you would even condemn the cop simply for running down the kid. (unless I'm mixing you up with someone else)

And why should there be a physical struggle over a traffic violation? I believe in my first post I said that I understand chasing the kid but that there was no reason to take it further than that. If the kid gets away who cares? Again, its a matter of tactics in proportion to the initial event. If I wanted to I could imagine a chain of events that could theoretically justify an officer shooting and killing the kid but we need to ask ourselves (and the officers should have asked themselves) is this a justifiable end result starting with a kid stopped on his bicycle for a traffic violation?

As I noted in earlier posts there would have to be some particularly interesting information left out of the news articles to justify the officers' behavior.

 

[Hurkyl]

If the kid gets away who cares?

Lots of people do.

Again, its a matter of tactics in proportion to the initial event. If I wanted to I could imagine a chain of events that could theoretically justify an officer shooting and killing the kid but we need to ask ourselves (and the officers should have asked themselves) is this a justifiable end result starting with a kid stopped on his bicycle for a traffic violation?

You're asking yourself the wrong question -- you're omitting a ton of relevant contextual information.

As I noted in earlier posts there would have to be some particularly interesting information left out of the news articles to justify the officers' behavior.

Agreed. But it's also clear the article is particularly lacking in interesting information. It's would be foolish to form anything but a superficial opinion from the information provided.

(Are you sure both articles refer to the same event? The names don't seem to match up)

 

[zoobyshoe]

(Are you sure both articles refer to the same event? The names don't seem to match up)

Pamela Ford or Pamela Thompson? Yes, I see what you mean.

My guess is that she has switched between a married name and a maiden name, or, possibly between two separate married names. Speculation as to why: her current legal name might be different from the boy's last name. She may have reverted to calling herself by the boy's father's last name to just to clarify she's the mother. The other source might have specifically ferreted out her actual current legal name. That's a guess. I think too many elements of the two different reports are similar to suspect they are actually different incidents.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I found another news story that has some more details. The event occurred last year. The woman's name was Thompson at that time and is Ford now (the boy's name is Kersey). Here is an excerpt:

Finding the front door locked, Kersey turned on Hooper, who had mounted the front porch to issue Kersey a bicycle citation, and began to struggle, according to the police report.

“Kersey started swinging his arms at Officer Hooper and yelling in an unintelligible language,” according to the police report.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/family-sues-city-over-sons-arrest-1198555.html"

 

[zoobyshoe]

I found another news story that has some more details. The event occurred last year. The woman's name was Thompson at that time and is Ford now (the boy's name is Kersey). Here is an excerpt:


http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/family-sues-city-over-sons-arrest-1198555.html"

Good work Jimmy Snyder. The police side of the story contains the important mitigating information that the kid started swinging first, and that he is a large kid:

According to the police incident report, Hooper first saw the boy, later identified as Kersey, riding his bike the wrong way down on Andrews Street.
When Kersey spotted the police cruiser, he started riding on the sidewalk.
When Hooper yelled for Kersey to stop, the boy took off up St. Paul Avenue, dumping his bike in front of his house.
Finding the front door locked, Kersey turned on Hooper, who had mounted the front porch to issue Kersey a bicycle citation, and began to struggle, according to the police report.
“Kersey started swinging his arms at Officer Hooper and yelling in an unintelligible language,” according to the police report.
An attempt to Tase the struggling boy, who was described as 6-foot-1 and 160 pounds, was unsuccessful.
Kersey’s mother opened the door and pulled her son in, at which point Hopper fired his Taser, hitting the 17-year-old in the back. The mother pulled out one of the probes, and Kersey fled through the house to the kitchen.
Hooper attempted to take control of Kersey, but had to fight off his mother and later a family friend. It turned into a donnybrook in the kitchen as Hopper and Officer Howard, who arrived as backup, struggled to subdue Kersey, while keeping the mother and family friend out of the fray.

 

[Evo]

Good work Jimmy Snyder. The police side of the story contains the important mitigating information that the kid started swinging first, and that he is a large kid:

All of this over a kid riding his bicycle. God forbid the kid was vandalizing property, setting fire to pets, etc...

I'm sorry, this was a ridiculous misuse of police force, and just really bad judgement on the policeman's part. And I'm always able to find a reason to supprt the police, I just can't on this one.

 

[Jack21222]

Good work Jimmy Snyder. The police side of the story contains the important mitigating information that the kid started swinging first, and that he is a large kid:

1st: 6'1", 160 pounds is NOT a large kid. That's a scrawny kid.
2nd: The taser was used AFTER the kid was no longer swinging, and was in fact being pulled in by his mother. He was tasered in the back.
3rd: The officers continued to escalate the violence beyond where it was necessary. The kid didn't NEED to be restrained as he was fleeing. He just needed to be issued a citation.
4th: I have secondhand experience of police officers outright lying on police reports. It happened to family members of mine on more than one occasion. I have reason to doubt their story.

 

[zoobyshoe]

All of this over a kid riding his bicycle. God forbid the kid was vandalizing property, setting fire to pets, etc...

I'm sorry, this was a ridiculous misuse of police force, and just really bad judgement on the policeman's part. And I'm always able to find a reason to supprt the police, I just can't on this one.

1st: 6'1", 160 pounds is NOT a large kid. That's a scrawny kid.
2nd: The taser was used AFTER the kid was no longer swinging, and was in fact being pulled in by his mother. He was tasered in the back.
3rd: The officers continued to escalate the violence beyond where it was necessary. The kid didn't NEED to be restrained as he was fleeing. He just needed to be issued a citation.
4th: I have secondhand experience of police officers outright lying on police reports. It happened to family members of mine on more than one occasion. I have reason to doubt their story.

All I said was "mitigating". Not "exonerating". I can see where the kid's behavior would cause the cop to jump to a whole other level of alert.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Lots of people do.

Why? Officers let people go on minor violations all the time. Criminals get away all the time. What's so important about a kid on a bike getting a traffic ticket?

You're asking yourself the wrong question -- you're omitting a ton of relevant contextual information.

No I am not. The only mitigating factor should be whether or not the officers or anyone else was in immediate threat of harm. It is also important whether such a situation is created by the officers actions. According to the article found by Jimmy it appears that they cornered him and he lashed out. They could have backed off and deescalated the situation. They certainly needed to back up and get room to use a tazer which was apparently fired into his back after his mom had opened the door and the kid was retreating inside.

Agreed. But it's also clear the article is particularly lacking in interesting information. It's would be foolish to form anything but a superficial opinion from the information provided.

The bare facts are still the bare facts. Unless the officers were seriously in danger that they could not extricate themselves from, a possibility but not one that seems supported by any of the stories, then there was no reason to escalate the situation to the degree that has been reported.

I work as security. I have worked with former law enforcement officers and soon to be law enforcement officers. In a stressful and potentially violent situation there is usually a point where one must decide whether the situation warrants pushing further or backing off. In such a situation it is always useful to ask yourself "what did this start over?" and "Do I really NEED to escalate this further?". Just tonight at the bar I had some guy starting **** with his girlfriend who happens to be a friend of mine. The guy got violent with me and theoretically I could have retaliated physically. But I kept my head and realized that that would have only escalated things. I shrugged off his attack on me and no further violence happened. A peace officer should have at least as much presence of mind as I had as an intoxicated civilian.

 

[Hurkyl]

No I am not. The only mitigating factor should be whether or not the officers or anyone else was in immediate threat of harm.

You contradict yourself. You say that you are not omitting any relevant contextual information, and then you claim that some omitted contextual information is actually relevant.

It is also important whether such a situation is created by the officers actions.

And yet more relevant contextual information.

According to the article found by Jimmy it appears that they cornered him and he lashed out. They could have backed off and deescalated the situation. They certainly needed to back up and get room to use a tazer which was apparently fired into his back after his mom had opened the door and the kid was retreating inside.

Since this (seems to be made) in reply to my challenge to your comment that we should be asking "is this a justifiable end result starting with a kid stopped on his bicycle for a traffic violation?", I'll reply to this.

Whether or not they were justified in cornering him, at this point it is clearly no longer an incident over a traffic violation, or even an incident over fleeing from the police, but an incident over an assault on a police officer.


It is clearly relevant to ask the question of whether or not the cops should have pursued. It is clearly relevant to ask the question of whether the cops handled an assault on their person reasonably.

But I honestly cannot see what line of thought has led you to think that nothing in-between the traffic violation and the use of the taser is relevant to the question of whether the tasing was justified.

The bare facts are still the bare facts.

Sure, but someone forming an opinion based on the article in post #1 clearly does not have the bare facts.